Colour Science & Perception
what the eye settles, and what it cannot
The collection

Every essay — page 26

Page 26 of 54, continuing through the fields in the same order.

What light is What the eye does Matching and measuring Difference and uniformity What the brain does What a scene does What a camera does Where the model breaks What it takes to deliver it

SeriesObserversNamed objectsRefutationsSearch

Where the model breaks

Seventeen observers in 1931, an error in the blue that was never fully repaired, colour vision deficiency, and the display this page is being read on.

Every filtered claim in these essays, read at a point and read as components. Each row is a comparison one of the essays makes. The bar is the ratio between the two readings — how many times larger the component answer is than the point answer, or the reverse — on a logarithmic scale. 5 of 7 disagree by more than half again, and 4 disagree about the direction of the effect rather than merely its size. The three marked as noisy are the ones with a noise field on one side of the comparison, and they are the three largest.

The list nobody made

The last phase found that reading a filtered signal at a point asks a question its thresholds were never fitted to, made it a standing rule, and admitted that nobody had gone back through the site to see which claims it touched. Here is the list. Every claim with noise on one side of it moves — and so do two that have no noise in them at all, which the rule said would not.

4 figures The hue circle cut into names, at L 60 and C 40. Left, the arcs each name claims, drawn at the colour of their midpoints; right, the same arcs measured in ΔE00 by integrating the difference along the ring rather than in degrees. The widest is 5.3 times the narrowest in degrees and 4.5 times in colour difference, so the metric accounts for 15 per cent of the inequality and no more. Only the eight chromatic terms compete on this ring: at this chroma the achromatic three would otherwise take the region where no basic English term sits, which is a defect of the model and is named in the essay.

There is no word for that colour

The naming model built this phase gives a saturated cyan the name green, calls part of a chromatic ring grey, and puts one of the eleven focal colours outside what a display can show. Each failure is a measurement rather than a disclaimer, and together they say what a vocabulary is that eleven points and a distance are not.

8 figures Every claim here that was computed with one model, recomputed with two. Each row is a claim one of these essays makes. The bar is how many times the two-model answer differs from the one-model answer, on a logarithmic scale. 3 of 13 have no bar at all: the first model's answer for them is exactly zero, not because it computed zero but because it has no variable for the quantity. Those are the rows where a second model did not correct an answer — it supplied one.

What a second model changed

Thirteen claims here, each computed with one model and recomputed with two. Ten of them move by half again or more. Three of them do not move at all in the ordinary sense — the first model's answer is exactly zero, not because it computed zero but because it has no variable for the quantity — and every one of those three is a join that supplied a state or a device rather than a spread.

5 figures Every change of light this site models, and how much of it a gain removes. Each row is a change of illumination. The pale bar is how far it moves an ordinary surface for an observer who does not adapt; the solid bar at its left end is what is left after the observer has applied the one gain adaptation gives them, which is the ratio of the two whites in the CAT16 basis and is not fitted to anything. Sorted by the fraction left rather than by the size of the change, because the two orderings are different: the largest change here is removed almost entirely and the worst row is a change less than a third its size.

What no adaptation can remove

A change of light is exactly a 3×3 matrix on tristimulus values, and adaptation is a diagonal one. Putting every change of illumination this site models through that distinction sorts them by how much of themselves they leave behind, and the smallest residual in the census belongs to a filter inside the eye.

7 figures Four devices, and what each of them can do about a change of light. The mean over the census of what each device is left with. A press has no mechanism, so its number is the whole change — a printed sheet does not adapt to the room it is read in. A display can move its white point, which is a gain in its own primaries. A camera applies a gain in whatever basis its filter dyes happen to give it. And the sensor that satisfies the Luther condition exactly is worse than the silicon one — satisfying the condition means its channels are the matching functions, and a per-channel gain on the matching functions is the transform this site calls the oldest mistake still shipping.

Only one of these devices adapts

An eye, a camera, a display and a press all meet the same changes of light, and each has at most one thing it can do about them. The press has nothing at all, so its column is the whole change; and this collection's sensor built to satisfy the Luther condition exactly is the one that adapts worst.

7 figures Outside the set of colours a reflecting surface can be. How far each stock sits from the boundary of the object-colour solid, as a fraction of the bound. The line at zero is the boundary: a perfect diffuser sits exactly on it, and every reflectance ever made sits to its left. The pale marker is the sheet measured with the ultraviolet excluded and the dark one with it included. Two of the six cross the line — they are brighter, in a direction that can be written down, than any reflecting surface of their colour could be. This is a proof rather than a hull: for each sample a direction is found in which the largest value any reflectance can reach is computed exactly, and the sample exceeds it.

A white that is not a reflectance

The object-colour solid is the hardest boundary in colorimetry — the set of tristimulus values any reflecting surface can produce, with no assumption about pigments in it at all. A coated press stock under a measurement standard's own lamp sits 1.5 per cent outside it, and a heavily brightened one 4.0, and with the ultraviolet removed both come back inside.

6 figures A whiteness measurement has a date on it. A brightener is consumed by the ultraviolet that makes it glow: the molecule that absorbs a photon occasionally does something other than re-emit it, and what it does is break. So the loading falls with accumulated dose and the sheet's whiteness falls with it, from W 123 to 88 — most of the way back to the unbrightened base. The fall is steepest at the start because the absorption saturates, so the first molecules lost are the ones that were doing the least work and the curve is convex from the beginning. The dose axis is in arbitrary units whose half-life is stated; what is not arbitrary is the shape.

The brightener is being used up

The molecule that absorbs an ultraviolet photon occasionally does something other than re-emit it, and what it does is break. So a sheet's whiteness has a half-life, the fall is steepest at the start, and a specification quoting a whiteness figure without a date is quoting a property of a sheet that no longer exists.

6 figures What each fitted thing in these essays carries, what its data fix, and what is left. Three columns per row: how many numbers the model has, how many the stated data determine, and the difference — the dimension of the family that fits equally well. The third column is the one nobody publishes. A zero there does not mean the model is right; it means it is determined, which is a much weaker property and is compatible with being determined badly, as the camera row is.

A fit can be exact and empty

Every fitted object here reports one number, the residual on the data it was fitted to, and every one of them has two more that nobody publishes — how many of its parameters the data actually determine, and how large the family of equally good answers is. The third column is where the failures live.

7 figures Which of this collection's own claims survive a change of basis, and which are about the paper. Nine sentences this site says, sorted by whether they mean the same thing after the observer's three curves are replaced by a nonsingular combination of themselves. 5 of the nine do. The four that do not are not thereby wrong — they are statements about a chosen set of coordinates, and they are true of those coordinates. What they cannot be is statements about the eye, which is how every one of them is usually read.

Which of these is a convention

Nine ordinary sentences from this collection, put through one test — do they mean the same thing after the observer's three curves are replaced by a nonsingular combination of themselves? Five survive and four do not, and none of the four is wrong, because each is a statement about a set of coordinates being read as a statement about an eye.

7 figures The same optimum, along its narrowest direction and its widest. The adaptation objective along two straight lines through its own minimum, both of unit length in the nine coefficients. Along one of them the cost rises steeply; along the other the same step costs 8.0 times less, and a design constrained to move that way gives up almost nothing. That is why restricting the nine numbers to be the inverse of three realisable primaries — three degrees of freedom gone — costs about one per cent, while requiring them to hit the three dichromat confusion points costs seventy. Counting what a constraint removes predicts neither number; what matters is which way it points.

A constraint costs what it points at

Three primary chromaticities remove three of the nine numbers in an adaptation basis and cost one per cent. Three dichromat confusion points remove six and cost seventy. Counting what a constraint removes predicts neither, because an optimum is a long bowl and what matters is which way the constraint points.

7 figures The points a ratio needs are proportional to the ratio. A scatter of 133 points on logarithmic axes, one per MacAdam ellipse under each of six coordinate systems. The horizontal position is that ellipse's true axis ratio; the vertical is the smallest sample size, from a sequence of doublings, at which the sampled ratio comes within one per cent and stays there. A line of slope 0.94 runs through them, against a predicted 1 — the minimum's notch is 0.88 σ₂/σ₁ radians wide, so resolving it takes a number of points proportional to σ₁/σ₂, and nothing about the basis or the ellipse enters beyond that. An ellipse with a ratio of two needs seventeen points and one with a ratio of twenty-six needs a hundred and ninety-two.

An extremum is not a sample

Three separate measurements in this collection took a maximum or a minimum over a sample of a set — forty-eight points round an ellipse, twenty-four directions out of an optimum, fourteen changes of light off a list. All three are wrong, all three are wrong in the same direction, and the error in each grows with the very quantity being measured.

7 figures What a constraint costs is how far it pushes, in the directions that are seen. A scatter of every constraint imposed here on the nine free numbers. The horizontal axis is the length of the displacement from the optimum measured only in the six directions the objective can see; the vertical, on a logarithmic scale, is the excess cost that displacement actually carries. Requiring the basis to be the inverse of three realisable display primaries sits at the bottom left, at 0.068 and 0.022 ΔE00 — it removes three degrees of freedom and moves the answer almost nowhere. Requiring it to hit the three dichromat confusion points removes six and pushes 13 times as far, for 0.68. The vertical spread at similar horizontal positions is the part a count of parameters cannot predict.

A constraint is a direction and a distance

Four restrictions on the same nine numbers cost nothing, nothing, two per cent and seventy. How many parameters each removes predicts none of it. What does is the quadratic form evaluated along the displacement — and showing that it does means walking in towards the optimum rather than arguing at the edge, because at the edge the prediction is out by a factor of three.

5 figures